The Bible Says Many Things

Scripture contains many points of view and that's not a bad thing. It is an amazing collection- a storehouse and library of faith, spanning hundreds of years of history, story telling, empires, spoken dialects, written languages, and materials used.

Spending just a bit of time reading or studying the Bible, you may find these contrasts disconcerting, especially if you believe or have been told that the Bible contains no contradictions. This belief  is a corollary to biblical inerrancy. 

Which translation is perfectly free of human error? Does an original text exist somewhere and if it does, what is its written language? Is it in book form?  The early fundamentalists like Scofield argued that an error free Bible existed in the original autographs of the first writers and so the Bible is inerrant "in its original form."*

Instead of mentioning biblical infallibility, I sometimes hear this: "you can't pick and choose which verses you believe and which you don't." This suggests that all parts of the Bible are equal in value and importance. But let's be honest: Jesus, as other teachers did in his day, offered commentary on the Torah.**

Before Paul's conversion to Christ and the Christian way, Paul, as a Pharisee and extremist in a freedman's synagogue, hunted down law-breakers and followers of the way. His actions were the result of, in part, what and who should be banned from his faith community. *** 

It's more honest to state what everyone sees: there are not "seeming" contradictions in the Bible, and if we only believed, we would know that everything agrees. And that the conflicts  disappear in a cloud of wishful thinking. 

Why not respect our hearers' intelligence? Yes, interpreting Scripture does require reason, sorting things out, what is important and what is secondary. Why not start with the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels as the most important words of Scripture?   

*See "Doctrinal Statement- What We Believe," Scofield Prophecy Studies. Scofield did not adhere to an error-free Bible existing in heaven, but held to the unity of the Bible with no contradictions in its message. Scofield originally believed in an agreement between science and the Bible arguing for both an old earth, as well as a young earth theory. 

**See William Trollinger, "Fundamentalism Turns 100: A Landmark for the Christian Right," The Conversation, October 8, 2019." Scofield's Bible included an overwhelming set of footnotes emphasizing that the Bible predicts a violent end of history which only true Christians will survive. "The Fundamentals," a series of leaflets begun in 1909, made the case for Bible inerrancy while simultaneously attacking biblical literary criticism, socialism, and evolution. 

***Luke 4: 16-30 places Jesus as a teacher in his home synagogue in Nazareth. The reading of Torah is followed by the teacher sitting in the seat of Moses to set forth commentary on the reading. Jesus' interpretation met with an unusually violent response from the congregants.

****For an excellent discussion of Paul's own faith development, see Elaine Heath, God Unbound: Wisdom from Galatians for the Anxious Church, 2016. Heath's explication of the "tradition behind the tradition" is as excellent as it is helpful.

 

Why Fear Asking Questions?

As a college student, I once attended a conference sponsored by Christian campus fellowship, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Some of my friends were active in this group and I found that the IVP books were of great benefit to me. My experiences with this group have impacted my life for the better. This particular retreat was led by a well-known author.

In one session (on the Gospel of John), I decided to go public with my doubts by challenging the main assumption of the leader in front of the group of about 200. The speaker began with the self-stated assumption that "the ultimate reality of the universe is God. Can we all agree on that?" I jumped in and said, "Aren't human beings really the ultimate reality?" There was a brief pause and things got quiet.  As nicely as he could, the leader said something like, "Though that's a good question, for our purposes we'll start with God as the ultimate reality." Ouch! (Note: It's not a good idea to challenge an authority in front of the whole room. You will never win that one).

A mentor of the great John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, gave him encouragement in his early ministry by telling him to "preach faith until you believe, and because you believe, you will preach faith."* My seminary professors used this phrase some, but I think it was meant for Wesley at a unique moment in his life and work. Perhaps it was the answer to improve his preaching.

But this is not a prescription for everyone. Can you imagine teaching the traditional Christian doctrines with your fingers crossed behind your back, thinking that if you say it enough, you'll believe? That's fruitless and a little deceptive, even without the crossed fingers. It's also teaching others to be dishonest and pretend they don't question things that, to them, seem unreal. This is especially true when the world's misery is explained away by spiritualizing or theologizing the suffering of others.**

So the next time I dismiss a difficult text, I need to know that I'm also dismissing others. When a Christian doctrine bounces off my ears as wishful thinking, I will need to accept that others have similar doubts. And no amount of repeating the right words will make the questions disappear.

1. Provide intentional group settings where authenticity and honesty is part of the group covenant. Recovery groups invite members to share their "experience, strength and hope."
2. Do whatever self-reflection -inner work- you need to go beyond anecdotes and share the meaning of a personal experience. 
3. Learn to share your growth of thinking on a particular question, how your understanding has changed from childhood on.
4.  In light of experience, even the questions themselves change.

*Words attributed to Wesley's Moravian mentor, Peter Bohler.

**Jesus died to show us there are no barriers to God's love. One way that people's suffering is minimized is to compare it with God's grief in unjustly losing God's only Son. While I understand it, I have never chosen to use it as an answer to people's suffering or misery, because others may hear it as "your grief or loss really doesn't matter when compared to God's." Even if we could measure or compare such pain, what about the theological- let alone the psychological impact- of this statement?

 

 

Teaching Morality: Why Be Moral?

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them a little lower than God,

and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet...Psalm 8:3b-7

Drills on good behavior are tiring and tedious; sadly, this is what makes so much preaching and teaching punchless and boring. Reciting what's good or bad may create docile people.* Asking questions is apart of faith development, and not antithetical to it.  

Instead of enumerating moral (or immoral) acts, start with the state of mind, the inner person. Because this is the locus of transformation. The first question to address is- WHY- why be moral? Why should I care? 

Moral theology begins with two important faith premises. One, we are created for covenant love, capable of both receiving and offering it. We are equipped to live in relationships, where unconditional love is a lively possibility.** Why be moral? Because it is apart of being created in God's image and likeness, made a little less than God. 

Two, we are free to choose, within limits, for the good. Read Psalm 8 again. We can choose whether or not to be driven by hormones, the instinctual brain, or to choose to employ the reason made possible by the human brain. There are no guarantees what is right and what is wrong, except maybe well after the event. 

What is my spirit condition that goes before a kind, gracious- or a  thoughtless, hateful word? What is self-chosen? In Roman Catholic theology, the differentiation between venial and mortal sin is made, with the caveat that it is very difficult to label an act as a mortal sin. Can we be sure if the original intention was evil? What are the intended consequences and the unintended consequences? ***

A Moral Examen

1. Can I love God without needing or expecting anything in return? 

2. Can I love others without hope of payback?

3. Can my actions spring forth from a loving heart?****

*The UMC mission, "to make disciples for the transformation of the world" has erred greatly on the side of listing traits, or even behaviors, of a Christian disciple. In this, unconditional love becomes secondary. The above is as much a value as it is a mission statement. 

**This possibility is limited by free will, our choosing the good. For example, addiction destroys free will, rendering people, created in God's image, incapable of choosing for the good. I do not believe addiction is first a sin, it is a illness, evidenced at the cellular level. See Gerald May, Addiction and Grace, 1988. 

***I am indebted to the Spiritual Direction Institute of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Cenacle, for my understanding of Catholic moral theology. Included in this is spiritual direction received under one of the Cenacle Religious. 

****See John Wesley, Christian Perfection: Edited with an Introduction by Thomas Kepler, 1954. Perfection is best understood as action flowing from loving heart, not as perfect behavior and flawless judgement.